SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 DOLLAR TREESTORES,INC. vs. of allotherssimilarly situated, HANSEN, individually,andonbehalf MIGUEL A.CRUZandJOHND. and thePlaintiffClass Attorneys forRepresentativePlaintiffs Web: www.scalaw.com Facsimile: (510)891-7030 Telephone: (510)891-9800 Oakland, California94612 1970 Broadway,NinthFloor SCOTT COLE&ASSOCIATES,APC Molly A.Kuehn,Esq.(S.B.#230763) Matthew R.Bainer,Esq.(S.B.#220972) Scott EdwardCole,Esq.(S.B.#160744) DOLLAR TREESTORES,INC. vs. on behalfofallotherssimilarly situated, ROBERT RUNNINGS,individually,and Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page1of31 NORTHERN DISTRICTOFCALIFORNIA,SANFRANCISCODIVISION Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification Defendant. Plaintiffs, Defendant. Plaintiffs, UNITED STATESDISTRICTCOURT ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CLASS Case No.:C-07-4012SC ug: Hon.Samuel Conti 10:00 a.m. 1,2009 May 1,17th Floor Judge: Courtroom: Time: Date: Case No.:C-07-02050SC OF POINTSANDAUTHORITIES CLASS CERTIFICATION;MEMORANDUM MOTION ANDAMENDEDFOR PLAINTIFFS’ AMENDEDNOTICEOF - i ACTION ( ( Consolidated Action Consolidated Action ) ) SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I OCU I N...... 25 CONCLUSIONVI...... LEGALARGUMENT III. STATEMENT INTRODUCTIONANDSUMMARYOFARGUMENT II. 2 OFI. FACTS ...... Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page2of31 .ClassE. AClassAction IstheSuperiorMe CertificationD. Permits Use of a Streamlined 23 Trial Plan...... TheCommon QuestionStandardsofRule23(a)(2)and23(b)(3)Are C. TheB. Rule StandardA. 23(a) Requirements for Class Certification...... Are 14 13 Satisfied ...... EveryFacetofStoreManagement IsStandardized B. DollarA. Tree’s Organizational 2 Structure ...... Common3. All Questions2. Class TheCommonality Standard(s) 1. Claims of 15 FactSatisfied Share 18 Predominate the ...... Same ...... TheProposedClassRepresentativeWill AdequatelyRepresent Questions3. 17 The2. Class of TheProposedClassisSufficientlyNumerous Law ...... 1. Representatives’ 11 Claims . DollarTreeEndorsesUniform Treatment ofAllClassMembers 14 Are3. Typical IrrespectiveoftheStore,SMsAreGivenandDirectedtoUse ...... 2. StoreManagersAreMoldedThroughaUniform Training 1. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification .Dla resCriiainPoesEsrsS ofriy.18 HowMuchTime ManagersSpendonAnyWork TaskIs b. . DollarTree’sCertification ProcessEnsuresSMConformity a. 15 the Class...... Common 7 Tools...... 5 Experience ...... Presently Irrelevant ...... 13 ...... TABLE OFCONTENTS ...... 19 ...... hdo duiaigTeeCam 21 thod ofAdjudicatingTheseClaims ...... 15 ...... - ii ...... 14 ...... 5 ...... 1 ...... SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Arnold v.UnitedArtistsTheatreCircuit,Inc. Armstrong v.Davis CASES Gentry v.SuperiorCourt General Tel.Co.ofSouthwest v.Falcon General Tel.Co.v.EEOC Employment Dev.Dept.v.SuperiorCourt Eisen v.Carlisle&Jacquelin EEOC v.O&GSpringWireFormsSpec.Co. Earley v.SuperiorCourt Dukes v.Wal-Mart,Inc. Domingo v.NewEnglandFishCo. Day v.NLO California RuralLegalAssistancev.ServicesCorp. B.W.I. CustomKitchensv.Owens-Illinois,Inc. Bufil v.DollarFinancialGroup,Inc. Boggs v.DivestedAtomicCorp. Blackie v.Barrack Bell v.FarmersIns.Exch. Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page3of31 158 F.R.D.439(N.D.Cal.1994) 275 F.3d849(9thCir.2001) 42 Cal.4th443(2007) 457 U.S.147(1982) 446 U.S.318(1980) 30 Cal.3d256(1981) 417 U.S.156(1974) 38 F.3d872(7thCir.1994) 79 Cal.App.4th1420(2000) 509 F.3d1168(9thCir.2007) 727 F.2d1429(9thCir.1984) 851 F.Supp.869(S.D.Ohio1994) 917 F.2d1171(9thCir.1990) 191 Cal.App.3d1341(1987) 162 Cal.App.4th1193(2008) 141 F.R.D.58(S.D.Ohio1991) 524 F.2d891(9thCir.1975) 115 Cal.App.4th715(2004) Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification ...... 15 ...... 14 ...... 14 ...... 21 ...... 22 ...... TABLE OFAUTHORITIES ...... 21 ...... 13 ...... 13 ...... 15 ...... 13 ...... 23 ...... 22 ...... 24 ...... - iii Page(s) 14, 15 13, 16 21, 23 21, 23 13, 21,23 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Hanlon v.ChryslerCorp. Ghazaryan v.DivaLimousine,Ltd. German v.FederalHomeLoanMortg.Corp. Ramirez v.YosemiteWater Co.,Inc. Prince v.CLSTransportation,Inc. Pettway v.AmericanCastIronPipeCo. Parra v.Bashas’,Inc. O’Connor v.BoeingNorthAmerican,Inc. O’Connor v.BoeingNorthAmerican,Inc. Mullen v.TreasureChestCasino,LLC Moore v.HughesHelicopters,Inc. McLaughlin v.HoFatSeto Lerwill v.InflightMotionPictures,Inc. Labor/Community StrategyCtr.v.L.A.CountyMetro.Transp.Auth. Jordan v.CountyofLosAngeles Jenkins v.RaymarkIndus. In reMegoFin.Corp.Sec.Litig. Hilao v.EstateofMarcos Harper v.24HourFitness,Inc Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page4of31 150 F.3d1011(9thCir.1998) 169 Cal.App.4th1524(2008) 885 F.Supp.537(S.D.N.Y.1995) 20 Cal.4th785(1999) 118 Cal.App.4th1320(2004) 494 F.2d211(5thCir.1974) 536 F.3d975(9thCir.2008) 197 F.R.D.404(C.D.Cal.2000) 184 F.R.D.311(C.D.Cal.1998) 186 F.3d620(5thCir.1999) 708 F.2d475(9thCir.1983) 850 F.2d586(9thCir.1988) 582 F.2d507(9thCir.1978) 263 F.3d1041(9thCir.2001) vacated onothergrounds 669 F.2d1311(9thCir.1982) 782 F.2d468(5thCir.1986) 213 F.3d454(9thCir.2000) 103 F.3d767(9thCir.1996) 167 Cal.App.4th966(2008) Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification ...... 2 ...... , 459U.S.810(1982) ...... 16 ...... 16 ...... 14 ...... 24 ...... 13 ...... 15 ...... 13 ...... , ...... 22 ...... 22 ...... 23 ...... 24 ...... 13 ...... 23 ...... 14 ...... - iv ...... 14 ...... 16, 21 14, 15, 13, 15 21, 23 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Wang v.ChineseDailyNews,Inc Walters v.Reno Stewart v.GeneralMotorsCorp Staton v.BoeingCo. Sav-On DrugStores,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt Civil Bus.&Prof.Code: CALIFORNIA STATESTATUTES Fed. RulesofCivilProcedure: FEDERAL RULES/STATUTES Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page5of31 231 F.R.D.602(C.D.Cal2005) 145 F.3d1032(9thCir.1998) 542 F.2d445(7thCir.1976) 327 F.3d938(9thCir.2003) 34 Cal.4th319(2004) § 17200,etseq. Rule 1 23(d)(2)Rule ...... 24 23(c)(4)(B)Rule 13 23(c)(4)(A) ...... Rule 13 23(c)(1)(C) ...... Rule 23(b)(3) ...... 13 ...... Rule 23(b) ...... Rule 15 23(a)(4)Rule 14 ...... 23(a)(3)Rule ...... 23(a)(2)Rule 14 ...... 23(a)(1)Rule ...... 23(a) ...... Rule 23...... Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification ...... 21 ...... 14 ...... 15 ...... - v 17, 20-25 12, 13, 20, 23 17, 19, 12, 16, 17, 21 16, 25 1, 13,15, 15, 16 14, 25 1, 13, 13, 14,25 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 TREATISES &SECONDARYRESOURCES Labor Code: Manual forComplex Litigation(2008)§11.493 § 2.61(3) Deskbook ontheManagement of Complex Civil Litigation PRACTICE GUIDES 4 3 2 2 1 1 Newberg onClassActions Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page6of31 Newberg Newberg Newberg Newberg Newberg Newberg 1 4 ...... 25 § 1174...... § 512...... § 226.7 18 § 226...... § 203...... 24 ...... (4th ed.) 23 § 9:63 at 451 ...... (4th ed.) 13(4th § 7:24 ed.) at(4th 13 § 79 ...... 4:25 ed.) at(4th ed.)§3:5at246-47 16 § 174 4:25 ...... at(4th ed.)§3:5at233-35 169 ...... Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification ...... (4th ed.2002): ...... 14 14 ...... - vi ...... 24 ...... 17, 24 17, 24 18, 20,25 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 upon thismotion, theaccompanying declaration,anda certifying thiscaseasaclassactionunderFed.R. (“Plain Runnings, MiguelCruzandJohnHansen 17th Floor,450GoldenGateAvenue,SanFrancisc be heard,beforeTheHonorableSamuel Conti, To DefendantanditsAttorneysofRecord: profitability of thousands of retail storesnationwid profitability ofthousands ofretail it isnotdifficult toimagine thecontrolsandlevelof routinizationrequiredtomaintain the are expectedtoobedientlyimplement itsdirectivesattheretaillevel. and operationalstandards,withouttheuseof would bepossiblewithoutgreateffortbyDolla price of productsisconsistent,astheservi almost exactlythesame manner astheyareinev can besurethatsubstantiallythesame items w the consumer’s experiencetherewillbe,evenbefore s/hesetsfoot inside.AtDollarTree, customers recognition ofthecompany name andlogoonthe INTRODUCTIONANDSUMMARYOFARGUMENT I. of thependingactionanditsmembers’ rightto opt-outunderFRCPRule23(d)(2). 23(b)(3), appointPlaintiffs’counseltoserveascouns Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page7of31 Please takenoticethat,onMay1,2009at10:00a.m For achainretailerspecializing inmoving as There ispredictabilitythatcomes from patroni Plaintiffs requestthisCourtgrantclasscertifi Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification MEMORANDUM OFPOINTSANDAUTHORITIES NOTICE OFMOTION RELIEF SOUGHT ce customers canexpect.Asexpected,noneof this ill beavailablefor purchaseandwillbedisplayedin - 1 r Treetohomogenize itsworkforce,storelayouts, ery otherstoreinthechain.Moreover,mix and United StatesDistrictCourtJudge,Courtroom 1, Store Managers(“SMs”or“classmembers”) who ubstantial amount ofonedollar(orless)product, cation ofthisactionunderFRCPRules23(a)and store’s facadeengendersconfidenceastowhat Civ. P.23(a)and(b)(3).Plaintiffswillproceed tiffs”) willherebyanddomove foranOrder o, California,RepresentativePlaintiffsRobert zing achainretailersuchasDollarTree.Mere e. Itisalsonotsurprising thatDollarTree’s el totheclass,andauthorizenoticeclass ny furtherbriefingandarguments ofcounsel. ., orassoonthereafterthismatter may SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 I STATEMENTOFFACTS II. the superiormethod forfairlyandefficientlyadjudicatingthecommon claims. homogeneity ofSMs’workandDollarTree’sexpecta state law policies andpracticeshavemanifested themselves in” testforovertime exemptions from thefederal“primary duty”test]. in decidingtheexempt statusof“white collar”workersand 1 merchandise atthefixed priceof$1.00.”(Ex.A, employed, justonce,forallofth join whether thoseanswersallowDollarTreeto determinations (e.g., treatment. preventarewhatmakes would the class certification singular decision,thehomogeneity betweenSMs’du an entitlement toovertime pay,admittedly without occupational uniformity ofSMs’jobduties,Dollar consistency andeaseof SMmigration from st and ahostofothertoolsdirectivesthatare andprocedures,common computer policies applications duties, job imposes uniform andpredictable offers comprehensive andcompletely-uniform SMs, to trainingandtraining-relatedmaterials Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page8of31 the wageclaims ofCaliforniaSMs sothatthesame case-andtrialmanagement toolscanbe .DollarTree’sOrganizational Structure A. Since 1986,DollarTreehas“become theleadingope It may gowithoutsayingthat,throughthismotion, Plaintiffs donotseekliability Ramirez v.YosemiteWater Co.,Inc. 1 ), asthosequestionsaredistractionsatthe Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification which SM jobtasksareexempt, em, withthesingulargoalofst satisfy thequantitativelegalstandard , 20Cal.4th785(1999)[applying aquantitativetest consistent class-wideandwhichensureoperational - 2 consistentlythroughout p. 6).BasedinChesapeake,Virginia,itoperates ore tostorewithoutretraining.Duethis Tree electedtocategoricallyexempt them from concernforanyvariancesbetweenthem. That class certificationstage;Plaintiffsonlyseekto how much ties, andthemultiplicity ofproceedingsthat tions for thatwork,classtreatment isclearly core issuesindisputehereperfectforclass rator ofdiscountvarietystoresoffering distinguishing reamlining thelitigation.Given time SMsspendonanyofthem and the company; DollarTree California’s “engaged under California SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Scott EdwardCole,Esq.(“ColeDecl.”),unlessotherwiseindicated. February 2,2008].Unlessotherwisenoted,allletteredExhibits(“Ex.”)aretotheDeclarationof Managers [“DMs”]). dictated bythepayrollbudget(whichishandeddow part-time personnelholdingnon-management positions SM, a job functions.Eachstoreemploys has thesame management hierarchywithemploy what SMsaredoing,andthattheyalldoingthesa inventory controltopromote storeefficiency.(Ex.A,pp.6,8) distributionoperationsfrom and [Virgi store incredibly-efficient andcentrally-controlledbusine operational structureisessentialtoitssuccess, thousands ofstoresnationwide,boastingimpressive salesof$4.24billion. Reg. Dir.prettymuch setsthehoursinstone]. SM]; Ex.E,p.238:6-12 [DM canaskforhoursa 22) [SPEHisgivenbythe RegionalDirector(“Re labor budgets];Ex.D,p. 98:1-9[DMdoesnot management. Ex.B,p.281:15-20)[thenumber ofemployees dependsmostly onthesalesand calculating SalesPerEmployee Hour(SPEH),maintained atafixedpercentage andsetbyupper 6 associates evenwhenSMispresent.];Ex.B,pp. 24:1-25:1[AMjobnotchangedovertime]. Ex. C,pp.55:10-56:2[AMscoachandguidea store’s staffinglevelcorrespondstosalesvolum 21:18-22:2 [RegionalHRManager(“Reg.Mgr.”) producesreportsregardingwhethera typically havemultiple AMs];Ex.C,pp.128:11- 5 4 “optimal storesizeofbetween10,000and12,500squarefeet.”(Ex.A,p.6). 3 in California,wheretheSMsworked.( 2 whoringupandbagmerchandise, andotherwiseattendto Cashiers merchandise thestores, Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page9of31 Dollar Tree’sstandardizedchainstoreoperation Payroll hoursand,thus,thenumber ofassociatesatanystore, isdetermined byaformula Ex. B,p.33:15-18[goalisoneormore AMs Ex. B,p.18:22-19:2[Eachstoreemploys aSM]. Most DollarTreestoresaresmall, relativetoothermajor discountchains,withan See , Ex.A,p.8.Ofthese3,411stores(across48states),roughly241ofthem aresituated Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 6 Specifically,atthestorelevel,there Id 4 ., p.13);Ex.A,18[netsalesof$4.24billionas oneormore AssistantManagers(“AMs”) setlaborbudget];Ex.E, pp.30:21-31:5,65:19- ssociates]; Ex.B,p.113:3-9[AMsdirect - 3 nia]” andconnectsmerchandise allocationand a feat that couldonlybeaccomplished that withan afeat ees performing oneofseveralhighly-standardized e]; Ex.B,p.36:3-4[AMssuperviseassociates]; nd giveinputonwhateach storeneeds,but 129:3 [staffsizetracksstoresize];Ex.C,pp. g. Dir.”)totheDM,who thengivesittothe ss model. DollarTree“centrallymanage[s] [its] n to SMs from their supervisors,theDistrict their n toSMsfrom me orsubstantiallysimilar tasks.Everystore at eachstore];Ex.C,pp.54:16-55:5[stores 3 isdesignedtoensurethatitknowsexactly , the number assigned to each storebeing each , thenumber assignedto are Stockers,whostockshelvesandhelp 2 Maintainingalow-cost 5 andvarious SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a-vis itsmessage toSMsfollow thesemandates totheletter, 56:8-16 [policiesneverset byAM,SMor just astheirsupervisors,theDMs,havenoauthority tocreatepoliciesorprocedures(Ex.C,p. or procedures].Assuch,predictably,SMs customer purchases,andGreeterswhorecognize F, p.56:3-4[StoreSupport Centeris mandates that“[n]ocontractsaretobe signed chain retailenvironment, at the corporateoffice.;Ex.C,p.74:2-16[DollarTree storepolicy 13 p.50:17-20 [Reg.HRMgrsdonotdeveloppolicies]. 12 11 26:18-20 [among otherduties,Reg.Dir.establishesSPEHlevelsforthestores]. 10 16:20-24; Ex.F,pp.126:21-127:9[allDMsusesame SMevaluationcriteria]. 9 what salesassociatesdotoday]. 8 40:17-18, 41:3-17,42:16-18. 7 trickle-down dissemination ofthosedirectives home officeinChesapeake,Virginia–ofamassi tightcontrols overin-storeconductthroughthedevelopment -atthe maintains Tree exist. Dollar DM supervisesroughlytenstores,whereSMswork. who, inturn,reporttoZoneVice-Presidents(“ report totheir respective DMs. districts. At thelowestoperationallevelarein-storemanagement personnel(SMsandAMs)who clear andtheirresponsibilitiesarelimited, inturnresultingahighdegreeofjobroutinization. in therightdirection. Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page10of31 On the HumanOn the Resources(“HR”)side,aclear Defendant’s Californiafieldoperationsaredivi Ex. B,pp.187:13-22,188:19-189:6,192:13-17) [SMs Ex. B,p.187:4-12[HRpoliciessetbyteam inVirginia,notatregionallevel];Ex. F, Ex. C,pp.26:22-27:3. Ex. B,pp.20:8-10,21:3-5[fourReg.Dir’s Ex. B,pp.110:20-22,19:5-7[acoupledozenDMs See, e.g. Stockers, CashiersandGreetersarepart- Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification , Ex.B,pp.227:13-228:1)[Salesassociatejobdescriptionaccuratelyrepresents 7 AccordingtoDollarTree,thesepara 9 TheDMsreporttoReg.Dirs.(sometimes calledMarketManagers) atVirginiacorporateoffice]. DM]);allthisisdone,as onewouldexpectinalarge set neitherpolicynorprocedure Zone VPs”),andsoon,upthecorporatechain. to eachchainretaillocationacrossthecountry. by anyoneoutsidetheStore SupportCenter.”];Ex. - 4 timers. (Ex.C,pp.57:12-23,58:3-25;Ex.F, entering customers and,occasionally,pointthem ve volume ofpoliciesandprocedures,the oversee Californiaoperations];Ex.C,p. ded geographicallyintoregions,andthen hierarchyandlinesofcommunication also evaluate, hireandfireSMs];Ex.C,p. tion ofdutiesbetweeneachpositionis 13 not allowed DollarTreecanensureahighlevel todisregardpolicies (Ex.D,p.124:3-4), 11 12 Each Vis- 10 8 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 their questionswillbeup-to-dateandconsistent,nomatter wheretheywork. Since SMsarenotpermitted toeithersetoralterpolicy, toreachout management personnelinalldepartments andatalllevels. they areencouraged made equally available toallSMs, readily available,plentifulanduniform. Inprom of consistencyinitsretailstoresfrom ahome officethousandsofmiles away. things, themost current company-wide policiesandprocedures]. “Dollar TreeCentral”)through abackofficecomputer whichprovides,among numerous other 18 authority tosetpolicyorprocedureatalocallevel, allSMslooktoacommon EastCoastsource. developed intheVirginiacorporateoffice,Reg. HR Mgrs.donotmake policy].With no 51:9, 54:15-55:1[NeitherDMsnorSMssetpolicy]; Ex.D,pp.50:15-51:5[SinceHRpolicyis 17 about variousissues];Ex.F,p.72:16-18[numer questions]; Ex.F,pp.16:23-17:2[SMsaregiven alis any question];Ex.F,p.19:4-15[SMscancontact DMs,theReg.Dir.orZoneVPdirectlywith 16 pp. 147:17-25,181:25-182:17[DMmust approvepayincreases]. Ex. F,p.120:6-11[highestpayincreaseSMcanreque [partnering withHRbeforeanemployee termina approval forsuspensionsandterminations isaCalifornia-widepolicy]; Ex.D,p.56:2-9 before terminating employees]; Ex.B, progressive disciplinepolicy];Ex.C,p.152:10- associates]; Ex.C,pp.70:4-17,153:2-6[SM warning, writtenthentermination) progressivedisciplinarypolicywithregardto 15 support CaliforniaSMsandDMs];Ex.C,pp.6:4-11,9:14-10:3,12:4-7. B, pp.45:4-6,47:20-48:2)[twoReg.HRMgrs 14 Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page11of31 Should SMshavequestionsconcerningpoliciesorprocedures,thesourcesofinformation are As achainretailstore,DollarTree’soperations EveryFacetofStoreManagement IsStandardized B. Ex. F,pp.78:10-79:11[SMs andAMsalsohaveaccesstoDollarTree’s intranet (a.k.a. Ex. B,pp.186:20-22,187:1-3[SMsdonotsetpolicy orprocedure];Ex.F,pp.50:25- Ex. F,p.23:17-24[opendoorpolicyexitsbywhich SMscancallHRorOperationswith Ex. B,pp.65:11-14,65:16-66:1,66:2-67:1[Dolla Ex. B,pp.44:22-45:3[SMscancallReg.HRMgrs.withquestionsaboutpolicy]; .StoreManagersAreMoldedThroughaUniformTrainingExperience 1. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification eachSMcancalluponReg.HRMgrs. pp. 67:8-15,232:1-4,232:16-19[requirement ofDM required tofollowDollarTree’sstatewide - 5 (deponents CandaceCamp andReed Balderas) 19 [SMmust getDM’sand/orHR’sapproval ous positionsareinvolvedinSMdevelopment]. oting agoalthatallinformation andresourcesbe tion ispartofSMtraining];Ex.C,p.34:4-11; are necessarilyhighlystandardizedand,thus, t ofpeopleatthecorporateofficetocontact st forstoreassociatesis3percent];Ex.C, 17 theycanrestassuredthattheanswersto r Treehasathree-step(i.e.,verbal 14

15 18 foranswers,justas 16 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 potential store-to-storevariationsandwithouttheneedforretrainingupontransfer. member class perform theirduties), degree ofhomogenous instruction(whichservesto assigned to a store as itsmanager. as store assigned toa substance, to complete acomprehensive ManagerinTraining(“MIT”)program, so arethetrainingprograms thatdirecthowthos different setofcircumstances]; Ex.D,pp. practices; iftransferred, SMs justapplywhattheyalreadyknowtoanew environment and permanently, toother storeswithoutanyform ofretrainingsince thestoreshavesimilar 26 Ex. D,p.71:8-14. 25 Safety Manualaresome ofthedocuments usedinMIT]. throughout thenation];Ex.C,pp.86:22-87:1[A the SMtrainingmaterials]; Ex.F,pp.75:23-76:4[setofdocuments usedforMITisconsistent the corporatetrainingdepartment, locatedinVi 55:15-21, 82:19-83:7,83:8-11[documents usedin 24 Mgr. usesstandardizedchecklisttoverifyeachMITsegment iscompleted]. confirm thateachSMhascompleted alltraini SM toseehows/heisdoingintheprogram]; Ex.B,p.104:16-21[trainer usesachecklistto 23 22 [MIT manual setsorderandpace foreachsectionofSMtraining]. District StoreTrainer,ensuresthatMITisc who overseesallnewSMtraining];Ex.C, through eachregion’suseofadedicatedRegi 21 Dollar Treeintendstoassignhim/her]; Ex.F,p.74:13-18[MITisconsistentnationwide]. 20 training]. department]; Ex.F,p.64:19-24[company’s goalis 19 Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page12of31 Ex. B,pp.132:11-133:21, 190:20-191:1[SMscanbetransferred,temporarily or SM tofinishMITbeforebeingassigned Ex. B,pp.105:7-13,105:20-22,190:8-15[MITfollows auniform manual]; Ex.B,pp. Ex. B,pp.106:13-107:2[duringMITprocess,Re MIT isaneightweekprogram. Ex.F,p.72:22-23; D,p.59:4-6. Ex. C,pp.29:17-23,60:13-18,61:1-10,62:5-7[uni Ex. B,pp.82:19-83:7,190:16-19)[SMstrainingis Ex. B,pp.54:20-55:4[SMtrainingprogr 20 instructionprotocol, Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 21 length, 25 s canenjoyaconsistentworkexperience,irrespectiveofany Duetothisextensivelevelof trainingandresultantlyhigh 22 127:5-128:25 [SMsgiven thesame MITandthesame pp. 85:25-86:17[Reg.TrainingMgr.,alongwitha oversight onsistent from person-to-person];Ex.B,p.107:3-20 ng modules]; Ex.C,p.92:21-93:3[Reg.Training onal TrainingManager(“Reg.Mgr.”) - 6 e operationsaretobeperformed. SMsarerequired rginia]; Ex.C,pp.84:24-85:8[LisaHallcreates to astore.Ex.B,pp.55:5-8,56:8-14,57:14-19; ssociate Handbook,PolicyandProcedures am developedbycorporatetraining tobeasconsistentpossiblewithSM further standardize themanner inwhichSMs furtherstandardize MIT aredevelopedbyLisaHall,Directorof 23 andmaterials utilized, g. TrainingMgr.isinclosecontactwith the same, withoutregardtothestore formity inSMtrainingisensured 19 whichisstandardizedasto 24 evenbeforebeing 26 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 strives tomaintain throughoutitsretailchain, facilities andintheirspecificjobduties.Even DollarTree’sretail at expect andhaveprobablyalreadyexperiencedahighlevelofconsistency through assignment tonumerous retaillocations. steeped intheDollarTreecultureandbeintimat stores. Thus,beforeanemployee becomes aSM,s/ and jobdutiesareperformed inadherencetocorpor and proceduresare,throughthismi are reassignedorpermitted totransfer from one employees of the corporation, duties; neithernewproducts nornewtoolsaffect pp. 141:20-142:25[SM job dutiesconstantovertime; nochangeinhowSMsfulfilledtheir 30 29 work, consistent.Ex.C,pp.105:13-106:5;F, p.95:6-9. Finally, SMsareexpectedtoleadbyconsistentexample, meaning thattheyare,intheirown uses standardizednewemployee packettoensureconsistency andcompleteness oforientation]. ensure SMsfollowuniform newhireorient Ex. C,p.79:5-13[consistencyinassociatetrai SMs useachecklistfororientation];Ex.F, that, priortopromotion toSM,employees arealreadycastuniformly]; Ex.F,p.65:15-23 [all 28 27 program materials, irrespective ofthetypestoretowhichtheymay beassigned]. on corporate-centralizationofoperationsandpromoting customer servicegoalsbyallretail years Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page13of31 30 Regardless of thestoretowhichtheymay Dollar TreepolicyfavorspromotionDollar totheSMpositionofindividualswhoarealready throughtrickle-downmanagement directivesandastrongcorporateculturewhich focuses Ex. F,pp.124:25-125:7 [SM andAMjobdutieshavenotchangedoverthe years];Ex.C, Ex. B,p.196:2-4[DollarTreewouldnotwantto looklikeaWalgreens orRiteAid]. Ex. F,p.65:4-8[Orientationandtrainingalso Dollar Treepromotes from withinwhenever .Irrespective oftheStore,SMsAreGivenandDirectedtoUseCommonTools 2. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 27 apolicywhichbearsdirectlyonpersonnelpracticeswithinthe gration ofitsworkforcefrom stor ation]; Ex.D,pp.71:23-25,72:15-20,74:17-20[SM p. 71:21-72:2[AMtrainingmaterials areuniform]; 29 beyond thetrademark lookandfeelthatDollarTree thecompany hashomogenized theSMpositionfor ning ensuredbyhavingReg.HRMgr.and/orDM - 7 28 store toanother,company operationsandpolicies ely familiar withitsre SMs’jobdutiesorhow they perform them]. SinceSMsandnon-management personnelalike he willoftentimes havealreadybeenthoroughly ate policy,ratherthananydisparatelocalmores. ultimately beassigned,oncetrained,SMscan possible. Ex.B,p.71:5-7;D,68:1-3. uniform forentrylevelpositions[revealing e tostore,widelydisseminated, tail operations,sometimes SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ordering system. countless documents doesnotstartandendwith and procedurestheirenforcement byuppermanagement. Indeed,theprocessofpouringover personnel. Sales plannerisdistributed toSMseverycoupl Planners” requiretheSM toperform certaintasks throughouttheday];Ex.D,p.12:24-25[a SM canseefirst-handwhere items are togo];Ex.C,pp.112:11-113:2,114:11-21[“Daily that matches his/herstore]; Ex.E,p.17:19-22[whe prints sentouttotheentirecompany arebroken downbysizeofstore;SMhastousetheplan 10 [aMonthlyPlannergivesstoremanagement a its competitors throughthemonthly plannerandweekly merchandise bulletins];Ex.F,p.58:5- 34 where ittellsyou,afteryouorder10,ifneed toorder12,itorders12foryou.”]. 19, 78:9-17).Ex.E,p.191:4-7[“...ARSsets,which a quantitytotheSM,basedonstore’sselling historyoftheitem. (Ex.B,pp.76:3-13,77:18- products. Forotherproducts,orderingisdonevia referencetoanorderbookwhichrecommends quantity, ARSwillautomatically re-order thatitem]. DollarTreemaintains ARSfor various 33 DM pre-authorized];Ex.E,p.113:20-25[COM work, orworkovertime. Ex.M;E,pp. MIT]). COMPASSwarnswhenassociatestakeshor 34:19 [COMPASSisastatewidetool];Ex. 121:14-22 [COMPASSuniversallyusedbySMstocreateadvanceschedules.];Ex.F,pp.33:25- 32 forms arealsoavailableonline].Ex.F,p.139:17-22[notevenDMscancreateforms]. L); Ex.C,p.121:5-22[forms must beusedbySMswithoutexception; SMscannotcreateforms; Tree CentralandusedinSMtraining,includinganenormous Forms &ProceduresManual(Ex. 24, 118:7-9).While Exs.G-Lhaveevolved,thecurrentversionsareavailablethroughDollar standards, ARSandmerchandise display 95:15-20), newsletters,forms, benefits(Ex.F,p.57:3-7),weeklybulletins, FreightFlow 155:10), Lawson–aHRtoolavailableto email, operational andHRupdates,promoti 31 Dollar Treebombards SMswithbulletinsandplanners myriad writtenandelectronically-accessibledocuments, Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page14of31 This centralizationof operationsismost evidentinDollarTree’suniversally-availablepolicies Ex. B,p.197:2-17[DollarTreecommunicates toSMshowdistinguishitsstoresfrom Ex. C,p.106:7-18[ARStrackscashiersales Associates areconsistentlysupervisedbytheCOMPASSschedulingsystem. (Ex.B,p. Using “DollarTreeCentral,”SMscanfindcompany-wide policiesandprocedures,check Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 33 Moreover,withevengreaterfrequency standards (Ex.D,pp.83:11-20,98:24-99:22,103:12- SMs, COMPASS(Ex.C,pp.38:19-25,65:10-66:24, 46:13-19, 182:19-24[overtime isunacceptableunless C, p.96:17-19[SMstrainedonCOMPASSduring onal materials (Ex.B,pp.99:12-18, 100:1-3,155:3- - 8 e ofmonths from theZoneSales Director]. PASS writesaschedulebasedontrends,etc.]. MIT; onthejob,theseworkersareprovidedwith floor schematic touse];Ex.F,p.59:5-11 [floor n aStoreCoordinatorsets upanewstore,the t orlongmeal periods,areearlyorlatefor is storespecific,shelving and, whenaproductreachespre-defined 34 whichdirectthem howtomerchandise/set- 31 computerapplications than updatesaremade tothoseresources, 32 andanelectronic SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 [corporate officetellsSM whattolookforduringthe“StoreWalk”]. day]; Ex.C,pp.111:18-112:1 [“DailyFloor 13, 206:20-22[SMs“walk thefloor”–conductvisualstoreinspections-- typicallythreetimes a Ex. E,pp.60:5-18,275:2-6 [Mondaysare“office”dayspercompany policy];Ex.B,pp.119:1- print oftheirstore,amerchandised floorprint.]. floor printshowingprimarily thefrontofst N. Ex.B,p.96:18-22[DollarTreeprovideSMsw 201:21-202:6; Ex.D,p.110:3-25[“DailyandWeekly StoreRoutine”setsSMroutine]; should bedoingthroughoutthedayandprovides taskchecklists;Ex.B,pp.127:8-11, Dollar TreeprovidesSMswitha“Routine&Guidelines” (Ex.K)whichdictateswhatthey corporate officefrequentlyprovideseachstorewithafreshanddetailedpre-setschematic forretail up theirstores. stockroom organization,andotherprocesses. specific displaystobuild,whenandhowseas 40 expected tofollowmerchandise displaystandards]. 39 38 display them. Anyexceptionsmust beapprovedbyyourDistrict/RegionalManager.”]. every SKUintheOrderBookisrepresentedyourstoresufficientquantitiestoadequately just tellSMswhattoorder];Ex.L[Bates 37 E, pp.59:25-60:2[Tellstrom encouragesandrequireshisSMstousethe Playbook]. numbers theyneed,stats,data,andinputitintheplaybook;alsousetowriteorders];Ex. store”]; Ex.O;E,p.60:11-14[SMscanpullalltheirinformation off thecomputer, allthe 36 information abouttheitem]; item goesonaspecificshelfandisgivenlabeltoreflecttheprice, theUPCand 35 where, what productstocarry,howmuch toorderofeach, merchandising --arguably,the floor. AllSMsfollowthePlaybook,onceagaindemonstrating uniformity atallretailstores. monthly planninginstructions,desi Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page15of31 Through these tight controls, Dollar Tree strips SMs of nearly all discretion over discretion all Through thesetightcontrols,DollarTreestripsSMsofnearly 39 For example, Weekly MerchandiseBulletins,sentfrom Virginia,instructSMson Ex. B,p.97:10-13. Ex. C,pp.41:24-42:3[Allpricingsetbycorporateoffice, See Ex. E,pp.59:15-18,60[thePlaybookisthe“nutsandboltsofbusinesseach Ex. D,p.42:8-14[DollarTreeusesplan-o-grams (alayoutofadepartment); aspecific whenandhowtodisplaythosepre-selectedretailitems. , fn33, Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 35 DMsevenprovideSMswitha“Playbook,” supra ; Ex.E,pp.185:22-186:2[OverandabovetheARS,some orallDMs See, also, note thatsomedeponentscallthese“plan-o-guides.”See,also essence gns andrulesforendcapsdir fn. 35 ofretailing.SMsare No. DTC02919][“Checklistingismaking surethat , supra Walk”]; Ex.D,pp. 114:24-115:5,115:16-20 onal merchandise shouldbebroughttothefloor, See, e.g. - 9 ore. When thestoreopens,getsafloor ; Ex.G,p.DTC00725;D,90:6-9[SMs ith amonthly promotional guideswhichhasa 37 whatpricepointstoestablishforthem, , Ex.G[BatesNo.DTC00613].Moreover, 36 directed wheretheyaretokeeptheweeklyand not ections forgettingfreighttothe 40 bythehome officeregarding Specifically, Dollar Tree’s Specifically,Dollar SMs]. See e.g. 38 , Ex. and , SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 have accesstotheSupportCenter,aTechnologyHelpDesk, ofthepoliciesa should havequestionsaboutany all for thepurposeof ensuringuniformity Dirs., theReg.TrainingMgrs.,AssetProtectionMa evaluative storevisits,notjustfrom theDMs, theirimmediate supervisors, leaving SMswithvirtuallynocontroloverthismajor retailfunction. product displayandstoreorganizationwhichisde 44 ensure DMsevaluateSMs consistently,SMevaluationsarescrutinizedat many levels]. and whetherSMsarefollowing company mercha and salestrends,storepresentation,customer serv 43 merchandising standardstoDMs]. perform storeaudits];Ex.C,pp.15:15-16:11[Reg.HRMgrs.reportnon-compliance with [Reg. Dir.visitsmay besurprise,which keeps SMsalert];Ex.C,p.14:10-15[Reg.HRMgr closing procedures];Ex.C,p.31:14-23[AssetMg night visitsweekly,duringwhichhewaitsinthe parkinglotforthestoretocloseevaluate merchandising directions];Ex.B,pp.143:2-15, presentation, stafffriendliness,safety,sh Ex. B,pp.153:22-154:12[ZoneVPvisitsstoresthree Mgrs, AssetMgrs.andZoneVPseachconductstor 42 AMs; DMthensignstoensureSMcomple consistent (Ex.B,p.239:13-16;Ex.C,pp.147:7-9,148:1-20[SMsusesame form toevaluate 155:1-156:6 [uniform SMreviews]).Theevaluati clean andproductsaresettotheplan-o-gram]. Ex.B,pp.110:17-22,239:13-20;C, walk,” theDMandSM,occasionallyassociates,walkstoretogetherensuringitis [DMs expectedtogiveSMsverbalfeedback Visits” toevaluatestoreperformance, usingth visit servesasSMtrainingtool];Ex.D, store operationsandgenerateareport]; to goovercompany’s establishedpractices];Ex.C,pp.32:6-22[DMsvisitstorestowitness Ex. B,pp.138:9-12,140:15-19,141:1-5,246:7-13[DMspe 41 positions),multipleat numerous HRManagers, DollarTreestoresasSMsand/orinsubordinate Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page16of31 To becertainthatSMsare,infact,adheri Ex. F,pp.17:24-18:11[IT HelpDesk(forSMs)maintained inVirginia]. Ex. B,pp.153:22-154:12[ZoneVPvisitsstores three tofourdays/weekexamine sales Ex. B,pp.141:21-142:15,148:16-22,153:17-19[Re Ex. E,pp.18:2-4,19:4-9[DMstraveltoallst Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification pp.136:19-25,138:4-5[DMsalsoconduct“OpsStore see also rink programs andwhetherSMsarefollowing andprofitability atthestorelevel. ted itproperly]);Ex.F,pp.122:14-123:1,128:14-23. regularly]; Ex.C,pp.110:24-111:8[duringa“store - 10 e same form forallstores];Ex.D,p.130:17-21 ng toDollarTree’sdirectives,SMsreceiveregular , Ex.F,p.25:9-18;C,pp.124:16-125:2[I- 144:11-145:5 [AssetMgr.alsoconductssurprise ndising directives].Ex.F, pp.127:21-128:5[to signed toensurecontinuitythroughoutthechain, on protocolforotherin-storepositionsalso nd procedurestheyarerequiredtofollow, ice, safety,effectivenessof“shrink”programs, r. conductsnightvisits];Ex.B,p.152:17-20 e visitsbetweenthreeandfourdays/week]; nagers (“AssetMgrs.”)andevenZoneVPs, ores, spendingtwotofourhoursineach]; to fourdaysaweek,lookingatsales,store 44 rform store“I-visits,”thenmeet SMs g. Dirs.,MrktMgrs,Reg.Training fellowSMs(many havingexperience 41 43 butalsofrom Reg. Moreover,ifSMs 42 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 this approach,DollarTreeensuresthatallretailstoresfunctioninarelatively-uniform manner. employee scheduling,breaksandtime punches,ba of whatshouldbeannounced overtheP.A.syst temperature.played andstore DMs place.]; 48 [payroll throughCOMPASSisavailableinareal-time manner tothecorporate office]. including activityonthecashregistersandtender typereceived];Ex.B,pp.150:20-151:4) B, pp.149:22-150:16,151:12-14[corporateoffice ha “Dashboard” allowsDMtomonitor dailysalesupdatesandinventory levelsforanystore];Ex. purchasing, payrolllevelsandcustomer serv their stores.];Finally,DMscanremotely monitor storeordering,completion ofadvertisement daily andweekly.(Ex.B,p.151:4-10[DMscan look track salesimmediately andconstantly.TheReg.VPrequiresDMstomonitor salesandpayroll 47 [regional weeklyconferencetodiscussstoresales,payrollandmerchandising]). Mgrs. andReg.Dirs.];Ex.E,p.262:5-13[DMsDir’stalkweekly];264:3-6 Ex. D,p.131:1-9[SMsgetfeedbackfrom variousfield positions,suchasAssetMgrs.,HR monthly conferencecallswithDMs,HR,andAsse management todetermine howtohandle anysituation];Ex.C,p.60:2-12[Reg.Dirs.hold 46 MITs, peopleplannerandoperationsobjectives]. E, pp.263:15-264:2)[DMsdiscusssales,payroll, consistency, DMshaveregulartelecoms withotherDMs,Reg.Dirs.and/or otherpositions.Ex. communicates withSMsbye-mail, phonecallsandSMmeetings]. Tofurtherpromote 45 to monitor andcontrolamultitude of dailyoperations information technologysystem whichpermits the Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page17of31 45 Due toSMs’occupationaluniformity, DollarTr Finally, andnotsurprisinglyforsuchalargechainretailer,DollarTreemaintains anadvanced andvariousuppermanagement personnel. Ex. B,pp.156:9-16,158:3-12 [SMslimited regardingtheheatingandmusic systems in Ex. A,pp.6,8;Registersalesaretransmitted in“real-time” tothehome officesoitcan See Ex. E,pp.20:8-12,21:10-11[asidefrom hi See, also .DollarTreeEndorsesUniformTreatmentofAllClassMembers 3. , fn16, Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification , Ex.C,p.135:9-18; C,pp.136:22-137: supra [open doorpolicywherebyallSMscancontactanylevelofupper 48 Thesesystems watchpoint-of-saledata,inventoryreplenishment, ice scoresdaily;Ex.C,pp.179:9-23,181:8-10[DM - 11 em toadvertise newproductsorpromotions]. 46 merchandise bulletins,HR,hiring,retaining, corporate officeand/orlocaluppermanagement s physicalvisitstostores,deponent t Mgrs.todiscussoperationalandHRissues]; sic HRfunctions andsalesreporting.Through 47 s real-time accesstoallstores’sales, ee longagoelectedtodeprivetheseworkers at payroll,inventoryandsalesforanyof ineachretailstore,rightdowntothemusic 11 [company dictatessome scripts SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 has advocatedclasstreatment. arguments andevidence,includingexperttestim induplicativeproceedings,thesame oressentiallythesameindividual plaintiffwouldpresent, core setoffacts,thesame witnessesanddocuments overtime laws,eachwill all SMsfromCalifornia’s argue thatSMworkissovariedastocallintoquestiontheutilityof classtreatment. extraordinarily-high affirmative response ratetoitbySMs,DollarTreecannotlegitimately now propriety of this decisioniswhatPlaintiffs ofthis propriety performing theitems listedintheirjobdescription. whereintheymust verify report, “Certification” of itsSMs’workconsistencythat,since2005,ithasrequiredallSMstocomplete aweekly Plaintiffs agreethatuniform treatment ofthese em It cannot“haveitscakeandeatittoo”byflippinglong-standingpositionnow. a cohesivegroup,sohomogeneous intheirworkdutie use ofablanketclassificationallSMs,ne conduct; indeed,solongasitremained conve tomeaningfully examineimpossible theseempl expected toopposeclasscertificationbyarguingthat of overtime pay, categorically holdingthem outassubjecttotheexecutiveexemption. of overtime pay,categorically of surveystodetermine thepropriety of itsexemption defense. Dollar Tree’sownwords, whatallSMsareexpectedtodo,andthatDollar Treeapprovestheuse 51 Certification processstarted];Ex.C,p.166:14-18 27:19-28:7) [SMresponsibilitiesunchanged];Ex. C,p.52:13-24[SMpositionunchangedafter [goal wastomatch Certificationtojobdesc 50 49 Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page18of31 For myriad reasons,thiscaseis While Plaintiffs believe that DollarTreesimplyWhile gotitwrong(i.e., Plaintiffsbelieve that Dollar Tree’suseof a “Certification” processisinstructive,insofar asit articulates, in Ex. F,pp.134:25-135:2[SMsfilloutCertifi Ex. F,p.138:16-24[SMshavealwaysbeenovertime exempt]. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification Sav-On DrugStores,Inc.v.SuperiorCourt idealforcertification.SinceDollarTreecategoricallyexempts challenge throughthislitigation.While DollarTreeis ription]; Ex.C,p.163:9-24;B,pp.25:3-13, ver oncesuggestingtheseworkerswereanythingbut nient andprofitabletodoso,DollarTree - 12 ony,” andforwhichtheCaliforniaSupreme Court oyees asagroup,thispositionignoresitsown they arespendingmost, ifnotall,oftheirtime ployees isproper.Infact,DollarTreesosure . Thisispreciselythetypeofcasewherein“each [Certification listexhaustiveofwhatSMsdo]. 50 make thesame legalallegationsandrelyona cations weekly];Ex.B,pp.250:18-251:7 s thatasingularclassificationwasappropriate. Giventheexistenceofthisprogram SMs’ workissoindividualizedastomake it , 34 Cal.4th 319,340 , 34Cal.4th mis -classified SMs), endorsed 51 andthe 49 The the SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Store ManagersatanytimeonorafterDecember12,2004. certifying aclassof: 23(b) aremet. Here,Plaintiffsmove thisCourtunderRules23(a)and23(b)(3) warranted when eachofthe four requirements of (2004); records whichDollarTree, bylaw,isrequiredtokeep.Conversely,theclass is Cir. 1978)).Classmembership hereiseasilyascertainablethroughexamination ofpayroll identified withparticularity.” class must be 54 issues andthatclassresolutionissuperiortoother availablemethods ofadjudication. 53 revisit thatcertificationthroughoutthelegalproceedingsbeforecourt”];3 [“district courts{have}broaddiscretiontodetermine whetheraclassshouldbecertified,and to amended beforefinaljudgment”]; would beunmanageable. Rule23(c)(1)(c)[providingthatsuchorders“may bealteredor individual issuesarefoundtopredominate, orifitappearsthatadetermination ofdamages Cal.App.4th 1420,1434(2000)),theCourtretainsdiscretiontolaterdecertifyclassif 52 before thecourt.” whether aclassshouldbecertified,andtorevis LEGALARGUMENT III. treatment inappropriate. although evenindividualized showingsasto“eligibilityforrecovery”do notrenderclass any waythatwouldrequire liabilityadjudicationsbefore membership statuscan bedetermined, § 7:24at79; Jenkins v.RaymarkIndus. proceed withclasstreatment oftheseparticularissues.”2 district courtinappropriatecasestoisolatethecommon issuesunderRule23(c)(4)(A)and common questionsdonotpredominate over theindividualquestions...Rule23authorizes 2000). Moreover,althoughnumerous andsubstantialcommon issuesdoexisthere,“[e]venifthe Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page19of31 Federal CivilProcedureRule23“providesdistri StandardforClassCertification A. Separate from theRule23(a)and(b)requirements, asathresholdanalysis,theproposed Rule 23(b)(3)requiresthatcommon questions Although Courtsadvocatetheuseofclassaction( see also See also ascertainable Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification

Wang v.ChineseDailyNews,Inc., 52

Dukes v.Wal-Mart,Inc. All personswhowereemployedbyDolla , O’Connor v.BoeingNorthAmerican,Inc. Sav-On , 782F.2d468,472(5thCir.1986). (i.e., be“adistinctgroupofplaintiffswhosemembers [can]be Lerwill v.InflightMotionPictures,Inc. , 34Cal.4that333; Armstrong v.Davis , 509F.3d1168,1176(9thCir.2007).Certificationis it thatcertificationthroughoutthelegalproceedings - 13 Rule 23(a) and atleast one requirement of Rule 231F.R.D.602,608(C.D.Cal.2005). see also , 275F.3d849,872n.28(9thCir.2001) of laworfactpredominate overindividual ct courtswithbroaddiscretiontodetermine Newberg , 54 r TreeStores,Inc.asCaliforniaretail Harper v.24HourFitness, Inc See, e.g. , 197F.R.D.404(C.D.Cal. (4thed.)§4:25at174; , 582F.2d507,512(9th , Earley v.Super.Court Newberg not defined 53 for an Order an for (4th ed.) in ., , 79 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 (2008); Moore v.HughesHelicopters,Inc. Here, theclassisrepresented tobeatleast655members. Ex.P. should meet thetestofRule23(a)(1) on thatfactalone.”1 presumption thatjoinder isimpracticable, andtheplaintiffwhose classisthatlargeorlarger 56 concede thatthe occupational uniformity stripsSMsofnearlya 55 issue later. exempt isnotrelevantnow,solongasmanageability toolsexistwithwhichtoadjudicatethat some classmemberswillhavenone contemplate theeventualindividualproofof damages, whichimpliedly entailsthepotentialthat 167 Cal.App.4th966(2008); v. EEOC Rule 23, U.S. 156,177(1974).Instead,toevaluatethismoti bemaintained may asaclass action....” it determine whether gives acourtanyauthoritytoconductpreliminary inquiryintothemerits ofasuitinorderto Cir. 1982).“ThereisnothingineitherthelanguageorhistoryofRule23that 669 F.2d1311(9th means difficulty orinconvenienceofjoinder;the German v.Fed.HomeLoanMortg.Corp. v. UnitedArtistsTheatreCircuit,Inc. Evidence ofexactclasssizeisnotrequired(1 number ofmembers; Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page20of31 A motion forclasscertificationisnotanoccasi Numerosity doesnotrequirejoinderofallmembers be TheRule23(a)Requirements AreSatisfied B. “[T]he difficultyinherent injoiningasfew40classmembers shouldraisea While thegravamen of Plaintiffs’ liabilitycaseisthatDollarTree’sestablishment of Bell v.FarmersIns.Exch. , 446U.S.318,330(1980).Here,joinderisimpracticable. not .TheProposedClassisSufficientlyNumerous 1. weigh competing evidence. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification correctness 56 rather,impracticability depends ofthispositionhas Bufil v.DollarFinancialGroup,Inc. , 115Cal.App.4th715,744(2004)[most classactions , 708F.2d475(9thCir.1983); ]. Assuch,whethersome SMsmay, ultimately, befound , 158F.R.D.439,448(N.D.Cal.1994);Rule23(a)(1); , 885F.Supp.537,552(S.D.N.Y. 1995) (“Impracticability Staton v.BoeingCompany Newberg - 14 ll discretionandindependentjudgment, Plaintiffs no bearing rule doesnotrequireimpossibility ofjoinder.”). on, theCourtneedonlydetermine ifitsatisfies on forexamination ofth onthefactsofeachcase. [4th Ed.]§3:5at233-35),norisaspecific Newberg impossible ontheoutcome ofthismotion. Eisen v.Carlisle&Jacquelin Jordan v.CountyofLosAngeles , 162Cal.App.4th1193 , 327F.3d938(9thCir.2003). (4th ed.)§3:5at246-7. , only impracticable e merits ofthecase. General Tel.Co. see also . Arnold , 417 55 , , SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the claims aretypicalifthey“reasonablyco-e named plaintiffs’claims injury” asclassmembers. plaintiffs bemembers oftheclasstheyrepresentand“possesssame interestandsufferthesame Hanlon v.ChryslerCorp. 58 57 class, astheyhavedonesotodate. Finally, Plaintiffsandtheircounselarewillingto class actionlitigators,devotedalmostexclusivel to optoutwillbeafforded that representatives, ortheirattorneys,andtheputativ thereis case, this (9th Cir.2000).In the classanditsrepresentativeisnotsufficient. 145 F.3d1032,1046(9thCir.1998); are representedbyqualifiedcounsel,Rule23( requirement ismet. representatives possessthesame interests, andallegeviolationsimpacting otherSMs,thetypicality oflaworfact”).Giventhattheproposedclass the classneedonly“shareacommon issue Legal ServicesCorp legal theories”astheclassclaims. Hanlon Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page21of31 Rule 23(a)(3) requires a showing of typicality, which the Ninth Circuit interprets permissively. interprets Circuit Ninth Rule 23(a)(3)requiresashowingoftypicality,whichthe Since theproposedrepresentativeshavenoconflic Cole Decl.¶¶19-20;Ex. Q. Declaration ofMollyKuehn (“KuehnDecl.”),¶18;Exs.P-II[SMdeclarations]. , 150F.3dat1020.Itissufficientforplaintiffs’ .TheClassRepresentatives’ClaimsAreTypical 2. .TheProposedClassRepresentativeWillAdequately RepresenttheClass 3. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 57 ., 917F.2d1171,1175(9thCir.1990)(classrepresentativesandmembers of need notbeidentical , 150F.3d1011,1020(9thCir.1998).Typicalityrequiresthatthenamed General Tel.Co.ofSouthwestv.Falcon opportunity.Moreover,Plaintiffs’ attorneys areveryexperienced Arnold 58

Lerwill , 158F.R.D.at449; no evidenceofantagonism betweentheproposed , 582F.2dat512.Meredivergenceofopinionbetween a)(4)’s adequacyrequirement ismet. to theclaims of theclasstosatisfy typicality;rather, InreMegoFin.Corp.Sec.Litig. - 15 e classand,eveniftherewere,anySMwhowishes y totheprosecutionof overtime classactions. pursue this action vigorously on behalf ofthe pursuethisactionvigorouslyonbehalf xtensive withthoseofabsentclassmembers.” claims to“arisefrom thesame remedial and ts ofinterestwiththeproposedclassand California RuralLegalAssistancev. , 457U.S.147,156(1982).The , 213F.3d454,462 Walters v.Reno , SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 1999) (predominance isdetermined notby misclassification case]; 231 F.R.D.at613[findingcommon questions ofla finding commonality underRule 23(a)(2)tobe“minimal.” rest of theclass,commonality exists.”).Indeed,theNinthCircuitconsiders requirements for of eachparticularclassmember varybutretaina 59 Newberg remained enigmatic, “[m]ost courtshaveagreed their Dukes significantissuecommonwith even“one tothecl to theclassexist,astandardwidelyheldbeconstrued“permissively” ( P. 23(a)and23(b)(3).Rule23(a)(2)requiresthe Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page22of31 significance “Rule 23(b)(3)focusesontherelationshipbetweencommon andindividualissues.” TheCommonQuestionStandardsofRule23(a)(2)and23(b)(3)AreSatisfied C. , 509F.3dat1177. Plaintiffs move thisCourtforanOrdercertif Parra v.Bashas’,Inc. economy issues compared to allother issues oftheparticularsuithasimportant anddesirableadvantagesofjudicial satisfaction of thepredominance testis question, orhaveusedsimilar articulations....Implicitinallthesearticulationsof havespoken ofacommon issueasthecentraloroverriding related questions, courts havepointedtosuchissuesthat that common questionsdopredominate overindividualonesin particularcases, fact thatthesuitalsoentailsnumerous remaining individualquestions....Infinding scale. Asinglecommon issuemay bethe whether common questionspredominate by the suitassuitablefor eithercommon orindividualtreatment anddetermines the predominance requirement isnotanumerical testthatidentifieseveryissuein controversy orevenbedeterminative oftheliabilityissuesinvolved....Inaddition, The testwasnotmeant torequirethatth (4th ed.)§4:25at169.Specificall .TheCommonalityStandard(s) 1. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification methods forfairlyandefficientlyadjudicatingthecontroversy. members, available andthataclassactionissuperiortoother members predominate overanyquestionsaffectingonlyindividual thequestions that finds the court ). AsexplainedinNewberg’streatise, see also 59 Moreover,classcertificationunderRule23(b)(3)issatisfiedif: , 536F.3d975,978-79(9th Cir.2008)(“Where thecircumstances , Mullen vTreasureChestCasino,LLC counting y, asProfessorNewbergexplains: , orwhenviewedbythemselves. 2 possessthecommon nucleusoffactsforall - 16 the notionthatadjudicationofcommon e common issueswillbedispositiveof the overriding oneinthelitigation,despite on whatthepredominance testdoesnotentail.”2 Court find that questions that Court find common coreoffactualorlegalissueswiththe ying thiscaseasaclassactionunderFed.R.Civ. of laworfactcommon toclass ass [being]sufficienttowarrantcertification.” the number ofcommon issues,butbyweighing examining theresultingbalanceon w and fact to predominate in an overtime an in w andfacttopredominate while themeaning of“predominance” has Hanlon , 150F.3dat1020. , 186F.3d620,627(5thCir. Hanlon of laworfactcommon , 150F.3dat1019), Newberg Wang , SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 determination oftheexempt/non-exempt character comm the favor ofgrantingthismotion. Whereas Indeed, thelegaltheoriesadvancedbyeachclaimant are already beenframed foradjudicationbyDollarTr original). Here,thequestionsoflawarecomp are challengingDefendant’spolicyofclassifying[classmembers] as‘exempt.’”) (emphasis in duties ofeach[classmember] inordertodetermine exempt from overtime wagesand,onthe otherhand,ar Wang trial, thenumerous is amenable toclasstreatment. an analyticalmatter, whether the practices likelyledtowidespreaddefactomisclassification. standardized oruniform policyofdeliberatemiscla explained, itissufficient,forclasstreatment, th questions arelikelytopredominate. in which[classmembers] actuallyengagedshouldbe expressed. Insuchcases,“[w]here.the“predomin class members overtime claims.” enforce theselawswherever thisdevice“would for thebenefitofworkers,”( that isspecificallydirectedattheenforcement ofCalifornia’sminimum wageandovertime laws procedure inwageandhourcases,reasoningthat, becausethereexistsa“clearpublicpolicy... 60 Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page23of31 , 231F.R.D.at614(“Defendantcannot,ontheone The classmembers donotsimply share In theovertime exemption context,thepredom (4th ed.)§4:25. In .All ClassClaimsSharetheSameQuestionsofLaw 2. Sav-On Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification , theCaliforniaSupreme Courtexpresslyendorsedtheuseofclassaction legal determinations whichnaturallyflowtherefrom areequallycommon. For Sav-On Id. theory ofrecovery Id. , at327. , 34Cal.4that340)theclassactiondevice , at330.Inthatsituation, thecourtshouldconsideronly,as Sav-On letely common, andquestionsofcommon facthave - 17 , 34Cal.4that330-31.Specifically,as some be themost efficientwayofadjudicating the ee’s ownchainretailingpoliciesandprocedures. ssification orsimply thatthedefendant’suniform on questionofdefendant’sliability,vis-à-visa of SMs’jobduties,w at plaintiffsshoweitherthelikelihoodofa whether thatindividualisexempt. .Plaintiffs ate issueindisputeiswhetherthevarioustasks classifiedasexempt ornon-exempt,” common advanced bytheproponents ofcertification inance ofcommon issueshasbeenfrequently common legalissues;theysharethem all. gue thattheCourtmust inquireinto thejob identical hand,arguethatall[classmembers] are Sav-On – apointthatweighsheavilyin , 34Cal.4that329; ill beadominant issueat should beused 60

See also Sav-On to , SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 individual analysis), and payrolldeductionstatement practices( & Prof.Code§17200, entitlement to meal andrestperiods( example, if SMs’entitlement toovertime payis what aparticularSMisdoing would,admittedly, him/her non-exempt.]. Thisisalldespitethefactthatpersonin bestpositiontoexplain should bepaidashourly employees, evenwhen aSM“certifies”themix ofwork tasksrenders 62 that thishasonliability next, isofnoconsequence. fact thataSMmay primarily perform “ordering”functionsoneday,and“receiving”duties the environment withinwhichtheydoit,andthedirectivesfrom DollarTree’scorporateoffice;the SM toSM.Thecommonality hereis 61 further servestomicro manage theirwork.Sin certify weeklythattheexpected trustthattheyarefollowe then procedures and routinization oftheirjobduties.Unlikeotherchai allSMsasovertime-exempt (i.e.,not treating (andtakingofstepstoconfirm) the “onesizefitsall” fact There isnogoodreasontoresolvethesesecondaryissues dispute (soastoavoid Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page24of31 common to class members predominate over questions affectingonlyindividualmembers. questions Here, over predominate members common class to Dollar Treegoestogreatlengthsbombard the SMswithcommunications concerning In evaluatingtheutilityof classtreatment, the Ex. B,p.269:6-20[Dollar Treedoesnotevaluate,onaweeklybasis,whether SMs Plaintiffs donotsuggestthatSMs’workwill .CommonQuestionsofFactPredominate 3. .DollarTree’sCertificationProcessEnsuresSMConformity a. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 62 61 literallybegsfor classtreatment of theseworkers’claims. et seq. Cal. LaborCode natureoftheSMjobandDollarTree’sresultantpolicy (i.e.,how All , andinjunctiverelief, theadequ SMs order tasks are being performed being andintheexpectedfrequency,which tasks are often see, Cal.LaborCode what they dothesetasks)isaquestionforanotherday. § 203“waiting time” penalties) see, Cal.LaborCode and tasks SMsdo,theresourcestheyusetodoit, ce DollarTreecannotdirectlyobserveCaliforniaSMs receiveproductinvaryingdegrees,andthe - 18 d withprecision,DollarTreealsoinsiststhatSMs proven, class-widedeterminations regardingSMs’ n retailersthatsimply adoptuniform policiesand be thatSM. Court must alsoexamine whetherquestionsof be identicalfrom daytoorevenfrom seriatim § 226.7,512),restitutionunderCal.Bus. acy ofDollarTree’srecord-keeping (Ex. B,pp.269:21-270:3). § 226),andwhethera“goodfaith” forhundredsofindividualSMs. exists will benecessary. baseduponany categorically impact SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 homogenizes theSMpositionand,byextension,look,feelandsuccessofeverystore. from avantagepointinVirginia,confirmation th also showsisthatDollar Tree an expectationwhichcreates acommon issuefortrial. confident italreadyknowswhatSMsdo,categorically, anditbelievesthattheworkisexempt, Dollar TreecouldnotcarelesswhatanswerSMs putontheCertificationform; DollarTreeis never getpaidovertime, through theregionalmanagement team, includingReg.Dirs.andDMs];Ex.C,p.176:5-9 [SMs B, pp.115:12-20,166:18-167:11[thatSMsarefollo [Director ofFieldHR]andtheSMtogoover SM’sexplanationandturnitintoa“yes”];Ex. the certification,CandaceCamp typicallyhas aphoneconversationwithDavidMcDearmon 65 about Certificationprocess;3+hourmeeting inSacramento]. procedures]; Ex.F,pp.130:17-20,132:7-133:24 process]; Ex.C,pp.157:11-158:19[twoSo.Cal.meetings withSMstointroduceCertification 64 63 class members ortheamount oftime spentfrom one inthemi exist likely argument thatvariations argue nowthatSM’sworkismore random simply defiescredibility. If anySM’sworkdeviatesfrom thenorm, steps Today, if aSMfails tosubmit aCertification fo California todescribetheprocessandfieldquesti certifying,DollarTreeheldmeetings withSMsacross were be completely clearaboutwhatthey of thejobdescription,whichbecomes obviousupontheircomparison. Moreover,sothatSMswould advocacy; DollarTreeadmits it.DollarTreeintended the information andassumptions uponwhichitdecidedtoexempt SMswereinadequate. “individual inquiry”into thenatureoftheirwo Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page25of31 Saying thattheCertification processiscalculatedtoensurethisuniformity isnotjust In thismotion, Plaintiffsdonot Ex. B,pp.251:12-18,259:8-13;F,135: Ex. B,pp.253:17-254:10[Q&AsessionsheldwithallSMsregardingCertification Ex. B,p.165:22-166:21[SMs’duties/responsibilitiesareaboutthesame inallstates]. .How MuchTimeManagersSpendonAnyWorkTaskIsPresentlyIrrelevant b. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification even if endorses they check“no”foragivenweek].What thisshowsisthat seekaliabilitydetermination ortochallengeDefendant’s class-wide treatment ofSMswithout theneedforan x ofactualworkactivitiesundertakenbyindividual - 19 r agivenweek,HRmakes contacttofindoutwhy. rk. Defendantcannotnow convincinglyarguethat ons whentheCertificationprocesswasrolledout. are takentogethisworkbackontrack.Indeed, at itspoliciesandproceduresarebeingfollowed [two meetings whereSMsaskedquestions wing thejobdescriptionisreinforced day tothenextonthesetasks.Indeed,itisof for theCertification’slanguagetotrackthat 3-12, 136:11-14[ifaSMchecks“no”on Accord , Ex.F,p.143:7-20.What this Wang , 231F.R.D.at608-09. 63 65 64 SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 common factorswhichpredominated in robust andinstructivelistofthecommon factualissuespresentincasessuchasthis.Indeed,the singular jobposition. at 614[explainingtheinconsistencyofthisapproachincontextanovertime exemption case]. the impact nuances that no consequencetoadmit thatsome degreeofuni p. 271:7-9[SMsdonotrecord hoursactuallyworked]. 68 first retailmanager casetoachieve certification status. 67 owed eachclassmember, barsclasscertificationasamatter oflaw.” period byindividual[classmembers], nordifferencesinthetotalunpaidovertime compensation 66 acted ingoodfaith( opposing classcertificationbydenouncingth andpr policies homogenizing its of minutia –onlythatthecommon issues Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page26of31 While certainlynotthefirst lawsuitwhereincertification wasapproved, Although DollarTreewilllikelyopposethismotion byirrelevantreferencestothevarious Here, however, thelistcontinues,andincludescommon however, Here, issuessuchaswhetherDefendant of hoursworked pay appropriatepenaltiesformissed breaks;(5 exempt employees; (4)Defendantdeprivedemployees ofmeal andrestbreaksfailedto good faithdefenseofthispolicy;(3)Defenda employees as“exempt”; (2)Defendantconducte Defendanthasauniform of policyofunlawfullytreatingcertainclassifications (1) premium payowedorthenumber ofbreaksthathavebeenmissed, affect questions. Mostdifferencesamong putativecla its employees. Acommon inquiryisthemost e versus non-exempt work;and(10)Defendant performed studiestodetermine theamount of program orpayrollsystem; (9)Defendant their paythroughacommon compensation employment wasterminated. Additional questions offactinclude:(8)classmembers receive (7)Defendantfailedtopayallwagesdue employeesemployees; atthetime thattheir Ex. C,pp.183:3-22,184:3-16 [norequirement totrackhoursormeal/rest breaks];Ex.B, This preponderanceofcommon issuesonsimilar factsiswhythismatter ishardlythe “[N]either variationinthemix ofactual work activitiesundertakenduringtheclass added). Defendant’s liability. Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification 66 Cal. LaborCode Cal. Certificationofaworkerclassdoesnot 68 amount oftime ; (6) Defendant failed to provide accurate itemized wage statements to ; (6)Defendantfailedtoprovideaccurateitemized wagestatements Wang ocedures andendorsingablanketexemption ofSMs,andthen , 231 F.R.D. at 612-13 (numbering, footnotesandemphasis , 231F.R.D.at612-13(numbering, §203)inclassifyingSMsasexempt, whetherpunitive Wang spent onparticulartasks,itcannothavebothwaysby predominate e useofrepresentationalevidence. - 20 also predominate here.Theyarewhether: queness existsbetweenanytwopeopleholding nt failedtopayovertime compensation tonon- hoursitsemployees actuallyspentonexempt has centralizedoversightandsupervisionof fficient andappropriatewaytoanswerthese ss members, suchastheamount ofovertime ) Defendantfailedtokeepaccuraterecords See in theirimportance totheoveralldispute. d anappropriateinvestigationtosupporta , Kuehn demandcomplete uniformity atlevels Decl.¶¶3-17;Exs.A-O. Sav-On , 34Cal.4that335. 67 Wang

Wang damages , 231F.R.D. presents a , not SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and damages tobedetermined onanindividual,yetsubstantially-streamlined, basis. liability trial,leavingdiscretequestionsaddr & Prof.Code damages arerecoverableandwhetherDollarTr 45 (9thCir.1984)). 103 F.3d767,782-87(9th Cir.1996); 38 F.3d872,876(7thCir. 1994)andacceptedbytheNinthCircuit( Corp. precise number ofhours workedacumbersome process.( particularly usefulwhere,ashere,defendant’s yet anotherclass-wideissuefordetermination. Suchformulaic approaches have beenfound not renderclasstreatment inappropriate,thecorrectformula fordetermining wagesduepresents 71 not dispensewithproofofdamages butra Cal.App.4th at750(approvinguseofstatisticalsa use ofquestionnaires,surveysorrepresentativesampling andtestimony. through well-established,efficientandeasily-managed procedures,including,forexample, the class-wide issueshavebeendetermined”). Inanyevent,individualdamages canbedetermined appropriate method todetermine classmembers’ damages “neednot beresolveduntilthe also Cal.4th at334-335; class treatment inappropriateaslongtheseissuesmay beeffectivelymanaged. individually establishhis/hereligibilitytomake aclaim ortheirspecific damages donotrender Court may bepreliminarily determined. Individualissuesrequiringthateachclassmember 70 resolution throughtheuseofcommon tools. even the on anindividualbasis’” adjudication, thereisclearjustificationforhandlingthedisputeonarepresentativeratherthan significant aspectofthecaseandtheycanberesolvedforallmembers oftheclassinasingle 69 As courtsconsideringthecomplexity ofovertime caseshavepreviouslyobserved: Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page27of31 , B.W.I.CustomKitchensv.Owens-Illinois,Inc. , 542F.2d445,452-53(7th Cir,1976); The superiorityofclasstreatment tootherava AClassActionIstheSuperior Met D. Not onlydoindividualissuesregardingeachclass member’s specificamount ofdamages Since potentialindividualissuesdonotpredominate, thecommon questionsbeforethis See, e.g. thesameproceedings thesame arguments oressentially andevidence,includingexpert [a]bsent classtreatment, eachindividualplai amount oftime §17200).Thus,themost substantial Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification , Kuehn Employment Dev.Dept.v.SuperiorCourt Decl. ¶14;Ex.L,p.8:2-5][“Ifthecommon questions‘presenta each employee spendsonworktaskspresentsanopportunityfor Hanlon, 150 F.3dat1022(citationomitted).”] Morever,asnoted Domingo v.NewEngland FishCo. ther offersadifferentmethod ofproof”). essing howmuch time eachSMspentoncommon tasks EEOC v.O&GSpring & WireFormsSpec.Co. lackofrecordswouldmake reconstructingthe - 21 ee engagedinanunfairbusinesspractice( hod ofAdjudicatingTheseClaims mpling inaclassactionstatingthatit“does 69 ilable methods oflitigatingtheseclaims isclear. questionswouldbed , 191Cal.App.3d1341,1354(1987)(the ntiff wouldpresentinseparate,duplicative See , e.g., , 30Cal.3d256,266(1981); Stewart v.GeneralMotors Hilao v.EstateofMarcos See , 727F.2d1429,1444- ecided attheclass-wide , e.g., Sav-On Bell 70,

71 , 115 Cal. Bus. , 34 supra See , , , SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 multiplicity oftrialswill a doubt,Defendantwillvigorouslycontestliability,meaning that,withoutcertification,the in doubts. Indeed,in even beingviolated]; employees who,foronereasonoranother, may not otherwisebecome awarethattheirrightsare have theirdayincourtas amember ofthe class,and(3)classactionsservetoinform andprotect employees, whom may nototherwisefileanindividualsuitdue tofearofretaliation,safely relatively inexpensivewaytoresolvetheirdisputes,” (2)theclassactionvehicleallowsmany availability of classactionclaims play“animportant function bypermitting employees a favoring classaction usage,towit:(1)individualawardsinsuchcasestendbemodest sothe 73 individual suitsisgreatlyreduced,andthepotential fordifferingoutcomes isavoidedaswell.”]. needless expenditureofadditionaltime, effortandmoney thatwouldbeattendant tonumerous Decl. ¶16;Ex.N,p.15:11-13[“A classactionis Transportation, Inc. Ghazaryan v.DivaLimousine,Ltd. 72 law arena,theCaliforniaS Tree couldeasilyintimidate anddissuadepotentialplaintiffsfrom proceedingindividually. in resourcesbetweenclassmembers andanextrao require analysisof thesame coreevidencebyamu to adjudicateallclaims within thealready-pe numerous issuesconcerningentitlement tovarious different expertstoanalyzesuchinformati discover Defendant’s reasonsfor exempting the to seekandcompel discoveryof Defendant’s po Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page28of31 cases wherecertainstatutoryre If there It wouldbefarmore costlyandtime consuming foreachindividualclassmember separately issues.” including defendants, toforce multiple trialsto both thejudicialsystem andthelitigants.“Itw testimony. Theresultwouldbeamultiplicity of Gentry v.SuperiorCourt “[I]t isnoaccidentthat‘wageandhourdisputes...routinelyproceedasclassactions.’” 67 (S.D.Ohio1991). was Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification Sav-On everuncertaintyoverthe Gentry , 118Cal.App.4th1320,1328(2004); See also , 34Cal.4that340(citing , the Court held thereis,sometimes, justification for classcertification result inanenormous wasteofjudici upreme Court’sdecisionin , Ghazaryan , 42Cal.4th443(2007)[summarizing thepolicyconsiderations quirements for certification are“o , 169Cal.App.4th1524,1538(2008),citing , 169Cal.App.4th1524(2008). superiority on for eachindividualcase,andotherwise litigate - 22 nding action.Moreover,separatelawsuits would licies andprocedures,takemultiple depositionsto SM positionfrom overtime, retainamultitude of superior tomultiple individuallawsuits.The Boggs v.DivestedAtomicCorp. ltitude of courtsandjuries.Finally,thedisparity rdinarily-large privateemployer suchasDollar kinds of damages andpenaltiesthanitwouldbe hearthesame evidenceanddecidethesame of theclassactionvehicleinemployment ould beneitherefficientnorfairtoanyone, Gentry v.SuperiorCourt trialsconductedatenormous expenseto Sav-On al andpartyresources.Intheend,as therwise questionable.”Without , 34Cal.4that340;Kuehn 73 Prince v.CLS haserasedsuch , 141F.R.D.58, 72 even SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 tools areavailabletotheparties.Indeed,as claims atoncesubstantiallypromotes judicial damages common-se issuesdoesnotundermine the representative testimony. procedures,suchastheuseofquestionnaires, surveysor well-established andefficient former SMstofileindividualactionsorabandontheirrightsaltogether. a practicalmatter, theonlyalternativestocertifyi and/or otherdescriptors of Defendant’scentra exemplar plaintiffs, separatejudicialor 75 accepted bytheNinthCircuitin Cir. 1974); used inotheractions. cumbersome process,tosaytheleast.Formulaic distributionsofback payhavebeensuccessfully make anyattempt atreconstructingtheprecisenumber ofhoursworked byaffectedemployees a have beenfoundparticularlyusefulwhere,ashe presents yetanotherclass-wideissuefordetermin not 74 and/or amount ofindividualdamages canbeformulaically-addressed “need notberesolveduntiltheclass-wideissues Kitchens Blackie v.Barrack treatment inappropriateaslong Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page29of31 renderclasstreatment inappropriate, thecorrectformula fordetermining backwagesdue Such “innovativeproceduraltools”cantakeonmany appearances ClassCertificationPermitsUseofaStreamlinedTrialPlan E. Individual issues requiring each SM establish Individual issuesrequiringeachSMestablish 339. class” procedural toolsproposedbyapartytocertifymanageable actions,and“thetrialcourthasanobligationtoconsidertheuseof...innovative class For decades“[t]hiscourthasurgedtrialcourts Here, theseissuesmay beaddressedusingsurveys/questionnaires, statisticalevidence, Not onlydoindividualissuesregardingeachclass member’s specificamount ofdamages , 191Cal.App.3dat1354[theappropriatemethod todetermine classmembers’ damages Domingo Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification , 524F.2d891,905(9thCir.1975); , 727F.2dat1444-45.Moreover,suchanapproach issimilar tothat See, e.g. Bell , 115Cal.App.4th715.Forthesereasons , Pettway v.AmericanCastIronPipeCo. Hilao they may beeffectivelymanaged. , 103F.3dat782-87;4 administrative mini-proceedings, experttestimony, economy, particularly whenaplethoraofinnovative lized practices,eachofwhich hasbeenadopted - 23 Sav-On have beendetermined.”]. Moreover,theexistence re, Defendant’slackofadequaterecordswould ng thisclassaretoforcehundredsofcurrentand ation. Suchformulaic distributions ofbackpay nse conclusionthatresolutionofhundreds Sav-On tobeprocedurallyinnovative”inmanaging his/her righttorecoverdonotrenderclass Courtnoted: , 34Cal.4that334-35; Newberg Wang , thepresenceofindividual (4thed.)§9:63at451. , 494F.2d211,261(5th , 231F.R.D.at613,citing 75 and, obviously,atrial and, Sav-On 74 attrialthrough B.W.I. Custom , 34Cal.4that SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 percentage oftime spentth for allclassmembers; inPhaseII,eachmember that thesecommon factors areexhaustive,Plaintiffsproposethattrialbeconductedasfollows: between SMexperiencesduetovaryingstoresizes,salesvolume andthelike. overtime hoursworked.Throughthisapproach,Ph would adjudicatetheexempt/non-exempt characterofeachthejobposition’sduties, manage allcommon andindividualissues.Specifically, in PhaseIthereof,theCourt effectively approachcould effect. While theCourthasdiscretiontouseanyplanitseesfit,abifurcated plan specifically tailoredtowardtheparticularlitigationhasbestchanceof achievingthedesired the tasklistitself;Phase II’schecklist-typeapproachaddressesthesevariances. 77 task Defendanthassoughttoportray.” each tasktoonesideofthe‘ledger’andmakes themanageability ofthecasenotdaunting ‘managerial’ or‘non-managerial]’ thatcaneasily comprise areasonablydefiniteandfinitelist. ...Thisisanissue[whetherworktasksare 76 successfully inpriormatters. Did Defendantviolate Which SMduties(hereinafter,the“TaskList”)arelegallyexempt underCalifornialaw?; • • affirmative defenses.”]; defenses.”]; affirmative F.Supp. at876[suchdevices permit defendantsto“presenttheiropposition, and toraisecertain (C.D.Cal. 1998)(questionnaire); certain affirmative defenses”]; (S.D.Ohio 1994)[Suchdevicespermit defendantsto“presenttheiropposition,andraise damages issuesviasuchapproachesareunpersuasive. Master); Rule23(c)(4)(B)(subclasses).Indeed, Strategy Ctr.v.L.A.CountyMetro.Transp.Auth. Manual forComplex Litigation(2008)§11.493(exemplar plaintiffs); (exemplar plaintiffs);DeskbookontheManagement ofComplex CivilLitigation§2.61(3); Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page30of31 Phase I(CommonIssues): rest periodstoSMs?; Questions common toallSMs(andwhichdisposeofthenamed plaintiffs’claims) include: Any variancesinSMs’work merely impact the “[T]he factisthetasksdiscussedin Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification Sav-On ereby on each task/taskgroup, ereby oneach Cal. LaborCode See Sav-On , 34Cal.4that339-40. , McLaughlin v.HoFatSeto O’Connor v.BoeingNorthAmerican,Inc. , 34Cal.4that339-40. Sav-On both defendant’sandplaintiffs’submissions §§226.7and/or512byfailing - 24 , 34Cal.4that331. due processobjectionstohandlingindividual beresolvedonaclass-widebasisbyassigning , 263F.3d1041(9thCir.2001)(Special (or asampling) ofthe ase IIwouldaccountforanypossiblevariations Day v.NLO amount 76 , 850F.2d586(9thCir.1988) andthenstatethetotalnumber of of time spentoncertaintasks, not , 851F.Supp.869,876 Labor/Community class wouldidentifythe class to providemeal and/or 77 , 184F.R.D.311 Without suggesting See , Day just once , 851 , SCOTT COLE & ASSOCIATES, APC ATTORNEYS AT LAW THE WACHOVIA TOWER 1970 BROADWAY, NINTH FLOOR OAKLAND, CA 94612 TEL: (510) 891-9800 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 question (employing remedial arithmetic) of which SMsareentitledtoovertime pay. report theamount oftime spentperforming eachta injunctivereliefappropriateand,ifso,inwhatform? Is Are SMsentitledtoanawardofpunitivedamages and,ifso,inwhatamount?; • Did Defendantviolate • • Was inbadfaith(forpurposesof DollarTree’sconductarbitrary,unreasonableand/or • Dated: March25,2009 multiple respects.Accordingly,Plaintiffsrespectfully requestthisCourtenterthe[proposed]Order. a representativebasis.Theclassheremeets alltherequirements ofRule23(a)and 23(b)(3)in CONCLUSION IV. addressed inonehighly-streamlined proceeding--andthelogicof likely bemost useful.Throughthisphasedtrialplan,common retailing scenario.Here,common trialtools,suchas approach notdissimilar from thatdiscussedbythe missed group,an meal/rest task/task periods,amount ofpenaltiesdueandthe time spentoneach additional roundofdiscovery.PhaseIIwoulddetermine thenumber ofovertime hoursworked, Case3:07-cv-04012-SC Document124Filed03/25/09Page31of31 Phase II(IndividualIssues): If PlaintiffsprevailinPhaseI,a“ledger”-type determining “waitingtime” penaltiesunder Rule 23wasdesignedtopreventrepetitiouslitiga eitherimmediatelyPhase IIcouldbeheld aftertheconclusion ofPhaseIorfollowingan Plaintiffs’ Amended NoticeofMotionandAmended MotionforClassCertification Cal. LaborCode y /s/ScottEdwardCole By: §1174byfailingtorecordSMs’hoursofwork?; and theputativePlaintiff Class Attorneys for RepresentativePlaintiffs Scott EdwardCole,Esq. SCOTT COLE&ASSOCIATES,APC Respectfully Submitted, - 25 Sav-On Cal. LaborCode theuseofaSpecialMa trialtoolcouldbedevelopedtoallowSMs sk, aprocessthatwouldtherebyanswerthe tion andtoallowcourtsmanage caseson Courtasbeingusefulinthatsimilar chain and §203)?; that individualissueswouldbe isundeniable. ster orasurvey,would